On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:27:54AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > We should in general be moving in that direction however it does need a > > bit of care to make sure that there aren't any dependencies which do > > things like discard error codes, fail to check errors or treat errors as > > hard failures. > I don't agree: on platforms which have done this, it's very difficult to > tell from reading the kernel message log whether things came up correctly > because there's soo much spew from deferred probing it's virtually > impossible to tell whether component X initialised or whether that error > about resource Y missing was ever resolved. I do agree that deferred programming is far too chatty - there's a usability issue there. This bites me a lot on some of my systems too, I tend to read my logs with grep a lot which isn't awesome. > If we want kernel boot logs to be useful, we really need to shut up *all* > the drivers and subsystems whinging about being deferred probing, and only > have the driver model core reporting this status - maybe only allow > output about why at debug level or similar. Yes, some sort of standardisation of how this stuff gets reported would give us much better control of these things.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
